Really? You respond to being called Little Marco by saying 'Well, you're Big Donald?!'
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271743-rubio-calls-trump-big-donald
As for the winners and loses last night. With more time to think about it, this is where I am.
First of all I saw someone last night on Twitter declare that Ted Cruz got an A triple plus, Rubio and Kasich got Bs, and Trump got an F.
FiveThirtyEight as usual thinks that Trump bombed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/fox-news-republican-debate-detroit-presidential-election-2016/
The Beltway pundits have thought he bombed in most of these debates. Haven't they noticed a pattern by now?
Nate Silver is deceiving himself.
"As for Trump … well, the conventional wisdom, like a snake eating its own tail, is that Trump is always judged to have done poorly in debates but winds up being steady or moving up in polls instead. That’s actually not true, though. His numbers wobbled a bit after the first debate in Cleveland; he faded by several points after clashing with Jeb Bush in South Carolina; and he finished toward the lower end of his polling range on Super Tuesday, although he still had a good night overall."
Nate hates to be the conventional wisdom but he has been throughout this entire campaign. He-and maybe even more his buddy, Harry Enten-have been relentlessly skeptical of Trump all along and have kept getting proven wrong.
I mean he admitted himself he was wrong. But since then he still is trying to fight what's happening. The idea that he faded after clashing with Jeb is laughable. If he faded 'a few points' what happened to Jeb after the clash? His numbers tanked and he was out of the race.
Even if these tangles did shave a couple of points off of Trump's numbers, it sure didn't help Jeb. The fact that Jeb so clearly suffered from the debate makes me very skeptical that Trump rather than Jeb is the one who lost those exchanges.
Nate and company are the conventional wisdom on steroids here, CW that never makes any progress.
The fact is if all these opponents of Trump were A triple plus debaters or even solid B+ debaters, Trump would not have taken over this party. You can say Trump is ridiculous but how ridiculous then is the party that he has totally absorbed?
This brings me back to the winners and loses.
1. The loser was clearly Marco Rubio. Just like Jeb Bush, whatever punches Harry Enten might thing he has landed, none of it has helped him him in the polls.
Ok, so Rubio says 'Well Trump did this first.' But that makes him sound like a schoolboy-and he already looks terribly like a schoolboy, sounds relentlessly like a schoolboy who has over learnt his pretty lines.
He's saying that Trump doesn't' look Presidential but is it Presidential to start giggling every time Trump starts to answer a question? That he was truly acting like a teenager was clear when Rubio made the gaffe of the night in saying 'Whatever, Big Donald.'
Uh, Little Marco is an insult, Big Donald is the opposite.
Here's the trouble with Rubio's trying to out Trump Donald Trump.
A). He's not as good at it.
B). While it seems to his supporters authentic when Trump does it, when Rubio does it he clearly isn't being authentic.
C). To the contrary, it's Marco Rubio, once again being who he isn'. who ran against amnesty in 2010, helped pass it in 2013, and who's been running against his own bill ever since.
D). Everything he does his consistent with the fact that he is a phony and an empty suit.
2. Winners. I think this is plural.
Rubio's trouble is he didn't stay in his own lane. He has been running as a serious candidate but his recent antics have totally repudiated that. His attacks on Trump have an unfocused 'everything and the kitchen sink' quality.
A). Ted Cruz did a relatively better job. He hit Trump but he picked his battles more and still was often to adopt a kind of above the food fight tone. His knocks on Trump at least were part of a larger narrative.
So I agree that Cruz did well. He was authentic to who he is: he's the Movement Conservative.
B). I think Kasich was very smart as well. I think if anything, if Rubio was the loser, then Kasich may be the guy who gains at his expense.
One real problem with Rubio's Kamikaze attacks on Trump is it still keeps Trump at the center of the story. These talk times tell the story.
Updated talk times:
Trump: 22:42
Cruz: 11:01
Kasich: 9:17
Rubio: 8:14
https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/705593903232229376
“If the GOPe tries to pick nominee at a brokered convention, the people will revolt. It is the dumbest idea.” – @TedCruz #KellyFile
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271743-rubio-calls-trump-big-donald
As for the winners and loses last night. With more time to think about it, this is where I am.
First of all I saw someone last night on Twitter declare that Ted Cruz got an A triple plus, Rubio and Kasich got Bs, and Trump got an F.
FiveThirtyEight as usual thinks that Trump bombed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/fox-news-republican-debate-detroit-presidential-election-2016/
The Beltway pundits have thought he bombed in most of these debates. Haven't they noticed a pattern by now?
Nate Silver is deceiving himself.
"As for Trump … well, the conventional wisdom, like a snake eating its own tail, is that Trump is always judged to have done poorly in debates but winds up being steady or moving up in polls instead. That’s actually not true, though. His numbers wobbled a bit after the first debate in Cleveland; he faded by several points after clashing with Jeb Bush in South Carolina; and he finished toward the lower end of his polling range on Super Tuesday, although he still had a good night overall."
Nate hates to be the conventional wisdom but he has been throughout this entire campaign. He-and maybe even more his buddy, Harry Enten-have been relentlessly skeptical of Trump all along and have kept getting proven wrong.
I mean he admitted himself he was wrong. But since then he still is trying to fight what's happening. The idea that he faded after clashing with Jeb is laughable. If he faded 'a few points' what happened to Jeb after the clash? His numbers tanked and he was out of the race.
Even if these tangles did shave a couple of points off of Trump's numbers, it sure didn't help Jeb. The fact that Jeb so clearly suffered from the debate makes me very skeptical that Trump rather than Jeb is the one who lost those exchanges.
Nate and company are the conventional wisdom on steroids here, CW that never makes any progress.
The fact is if all these opponents of Trump were A triple plus debaters or even solid B+ debaters, Trump would not have taken over this party. You can say Trump is ridiculous but how ridiculous then is the party that he has totally absorbed?
This brings me back to the winners and loses.
1. The loser was clearly Marco Rubio. Just like Jeb Bush, whatever punches Harry Enten might thing he has landed, none of it has helped him him in the polls.
Ok, so Rubio says 'Well Trump did this first.' But that makes him sound like a schoolboy-and he already looks terribly like a schoolboy, sounds relentlessly like a schoolboy who has over learnt his pretty lines.
He's saying that Trump doesn't' look Presidential but is it Presidential to start giggling every time Trump starts to answer a question? That he was truly acting like a teenager was clear when Rubio made the gaffe of the night in saying 'Whatever, Big Donald.'
Uh, Little Marco is an insult, Big Donald is the opposite.
Here's the trouble with Rubio's trying to out Trump Donald Trump.
A). He's not as good at it.
B). While it seems to his supporters authentic when Trump does it, when Rubio does it he clearly isn't being authentic.
C). To the contrary, it's Marco Rubio, once again being who he isn'. who ran against amnesty in 2010, helped pass it in 2013, and who's been running against his own bill ever since.
D). Everything he does his consistent with the fact that he is a phony and an empty suit.
2. Winners. I think this is plural.
Rubio's trouble is he didn't stay in his own lane. He has been running as a serious candidate but his recent antics have totally repudiated that. His attacks on Trump have an unfocused 'everything and the kitchen sink' quality.
A). Ted Cruz did a relatively better job. He hit Trump but he picked his battles more and still was often to adopt a kind of above the food fight tone. His knocks on Trump at least were part of a larger narrative.
So I agree that Cruz did well. He was authentic to who he is: he's the Movement Conservative.
B). I think Kasich was very smart as well. I think if anything, if Rubio was the loser, then Kasich may be the guy who gains at his expense.
One real problem with Rubio's Kamikaze attacks on Trump is it still keeps Trump at the center of the story. These talk times tell the story.
Updated talk times:
Trump: 22:42
Cruz: 11:01
Kasich: 9:17
Rubio: 8:14
https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/705593903232229376
Rubio's run now is just all about why you shouldn't vote for Trump rather than why you should vote for him. Kasich is still keeping this about himself.
He's decided his lane is the positive candidate who won't take shots. He turned down an offer to attack Trump last night.
I think there are Republican voters who might like that. The trouble is I don't know they're the majority. But that's neither here nor there. He's got to do what he can. I think he may have gained at Rubio's expense last night.
Even Frank Luntz's Rubio focus groups-usually his groups pick Rubio- didn't show Rubio doing well last night.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/705605696549687296
They did love Kasich.
C). I also think Trump did fine for himself. Nate Silver thinks he was very negative but it''s not easy staying positive when you are the subject of everyone's attacks, including the moderators. Megyn Kelly seemed to enjoy going after him on Trump University.
Note that while she will say she was tough on everyone, overall Trump had the toughest night in terms of being attacked. None of the other candidates attacked each other.
And on Trump University, Kelly really worked overtime to back up Rubio's attacks on TU. I didn't see her or the other moderators come close to being so relentless in fact checking the other candidates. I mean does Ted Cruz have a career record in law enforcement?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-law-enforcement-experience-fact-check
Considering he was under such relentless attack, I thought he held up well. And again, even though the attention was negative, it also elevated him, yet again, as the topic of all the attention.
Many have noted that this had the feel of a job interview for Trump more than anything.
To be running to stop Trump rather than to win yourself is a tough road to the nomination.
I agree with Frank Luntz here. Or I agree with his quoting Ted Cruz here.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz
No comments:
Post a Comment